Without a Runnng Game a Good QB cannot Dominate

[StupidNation]

With 10 seconds remaining before the half Warner has throw for 251 yards, 84.7% completion percentage, and the score is only 13-7 with the Cards only getting 3 FGs for all the running up the field. No consistency at all.

 

D's are falling back into coverage with the Cards and they still can't run the ball. Sound similar? Trent isn't Warner, but Trent is good. For a 2nd year guy I'm shocked we are 5-4. The Cards are a spitting image of our team with better WRs and a better QB.

[silvermike]

Run and stop the run. Every good team does it.

[Thurman#1]

Run and stop the run. Every good team does it.

 

 

 

Good point. Wrong thread.

[AnthonyF]

With 10 seconds remaining before the half Warner has throw for 251 yards, 84.7% completion percentage, and the score is only 13-7 with the Cards only getting 3 FGs for all the running up the field. No consistency at all.

 

D's are falling back into coverage with the Cards and they still can't run the ball. Sound similar? Trent isn't Warner, but Trent is good. For a 2nd year guy I'm shocked we are 5-4. The Cards are a spitting image of our team with better WRs and a better QB.

 

I love another Edwards defender explaining how terrible 300 yard passing games are...... Hate to see them and winning too sucks.....

 

What is wrong with 300 yards and 3 TD's???? Usually means a win.....

[StupidNation]

I love another Edwards defender explaining how terrible 300 yard passing games are...... Hate to see them and winning too sucks.....

 

What is wrong with 300 yards and 3 TD's???? Usually means a win.....

 

That was my point? Can you not read?

 

I never said 300 yards and 3 TDs is wrong, nor did I say it wasn't a win, but point was a guy who threw for 250 yards in the first half, at the time I wrote it, only scored 13 points. Sorry, but as impressive as Warner is he isn't going to win the SB without a running game.

 

Edwards, with less talent himself and less talent on the team, cannot expect to do more without a running game. That was my point.

[thebandit27]

With 10 seconds remaining before the half Warner has throw for 251 yards, 84.7% completion percentage, and the score is only 13-7 with the Cards only getting 3 FGs for all the running up the field. No consistency at all.

 

D's are falling back into coverage with the Cards and they still can't run the ball. Sound similar? Trent isn't Warner, but Trent is good. For a 2nd year guy I'm shocked we are 5-4. The Cards are a spitting image of our team with better WRs and a better QB.

 

The title of your thread and thesis behind it are just plain wrong. Tom Brady dominated last year and the Patriots had an awful running game, so don't say it can't be done. It can. You just need a really good quarterback. If the Cardinals are the "spitting image of our team with better WRs and a better QB", and they're 7-3, and definitely going to the playoffs, then it would appear you can indeed win without a running game. According to you, the Bills just need better WRs and a better QB, right? Arizona is 29th in the league in rushing, but they average 300+ yds passing per game. I would call that consistency, wouldn't you? Just because it doesn't lend any credence to your agenda of blasting the Bills' running game, that doesn't mean it isn't a perfectly good model for success. Arizona wins games because they get first downs and force turnovers (lead the league with 22). That keeps the clock moving and the ball in your possession. Doesn't matter how you do it, it's the RESULT that counts.

[StupidNation]

The title of your thread and thesis behind it are just plain wrong. Tom Brady dominated last year and the Patriots had an awful running game, so don't say it can't be done. It can. You just need a really good quarterback. If the Cardinals are the "spitting image of our team with better WRs and a better QB", and they're 7-3, and definitely going to the playoffs, then it would appear you can indeed win without a running game. According to you, the Bills just need better WRs and a better QB, right? Arizona is 29th in the league in rushing, but they average 300+ yds passing per game. I would call that consistency, wouldn't you? Just because it doesn't lend any credence to your agenda of blasting the Bills' running game, that doesn't mean it isn't a perfectly good model for success. Arizona wins games because they get first downs and force turnovers (lead the league with 22). That keeps the clock moving and the ball in your possession. Doesn't matter how you do it, it's the RESULT that counts.

 

Awful as in 10 games with over 100 yards rushing awful? 1849 yards rushing with 17 TDs is awful? Averaging over 100 yards a game with over 1 TD a game is not awful.

 

Brady did dominate and had 2 of the best WRs in their positions with Moss out wide, and the best 3 WR in Welker. Brady isn't too bad himself. If we have the best outside WR and the best #3 receiver in the game you might have a point. You might also need some refs who don't call holding either as the Patriots routinely did without penalties. Tell me how the Pats* did in the Superbowl without a running game. Tell me how Kelly did without using Thurman in the SB against the Giants.

 

The 07 Pats* is not a team you say, "Oh yeah, all we need now is Randy, Wes, and Brady and we're set." Their defense was pretty good last year too. RESULTS dictate you need more than a passing game to win in this league, and the odds of getting Trent to become Brady or Warner, Evans to become Moss, and Parrish or Reed to become Welker is not going to happen.

[kota]

If the Bills could have managed 100-150 combined total rushing yards each of the last 3 losses they would have won each game.

[AnthonyF]

That was my point? Can you not read?

 

I never said 300 yards and 3 TDs is wrong, nor did I say it wasn't a win, but point was a guy who threw for 250 yards in the first half, at the time I wrote it, only scored 13 points. Sorry, but as impressive as Warner is he isn't going to win the SB without a running game.

 

Edwards, with less talent himself and less talent on the team, cannot expect to do more without a running game. That was my point.

 

Check the game log..... They held the ball, moved it up and down the field and frankly were weak in converting. However on the road in a tough stadium where they have not won since 2002, they controlled the game and scored 26 points.... They had poor field position. Score looked close as Seattle had 2 scoring drives under 15 yards.

 

How about the Bills scoring on the road, controlled short passes like many teams can do? How about the threat of a long pass?

[thebandit27]

Awful as in 10 games with over 100 yards rushing awful? 1849 yards rushing with 17 TDs is awful? Averaging over 100 yards a game with over 1 TD a game is not awful.

 

Brady did dominate and had 2 of the best WRs in their positions with Moss out wide, and the best 3 WR in Welker. Brady isn't too bad himself. If we have the best outside WR and the best #3 receiver in the game you might have a point. You might also need some refs who don't call holding either as the Patriots routinely did without penalties. Tell me how the Pats* did in the Superbowl without a running game. Tell me how Kelly did without using Thurman in the SB against the Giants.

 

The 07 Pats* is not a team you say, "Oh yeah, all we need now is Randy, Wes, and Brady and we're set." Their defense was pretty good last year too. RESULTS dictate you need more than a passing game to win in this league, and the odds of getting Trent to become Brady or Warner, Evans to become Moss, and Parrish or Reed to become Welker is not going to happen.

 

Wow. Where to start? No. 1, stick to one point, and argue it. What are you saying? You started with "A QB can't dominate without a running game", which is false since Warner is doing it right now. To counter that, you said that you need more than a passing game, which really just piggy-backing off of the point that I made (see "first downs and forcing turnovers"). Then you imply that I said Trent needs to become Brady or Warner, etc. etc. I never said anything close to that. Actually, what I said was that the crux of your argument implied that those developments were all that would be required to circumvent the need for a running game (give my post another read, it should be very clear; I don't like to brag, but I am a reasonably-well-skilled writer). Furthermore, to back up your point, you attempt to fall back on the Superbowl losses of the Patriots and Bills. Superbowl? How about if we let the Bills reach the playoffs (which, as you would admit if it didn't hurt your argument, can be done without a great running game) before we start worrying about the Superbowl.

 

But, since you want to limit the argument to Superbowl participants, let's bo back a ways and look at it. I'll make my point with Superbowl Winners:

 

2006 Colts: Running game ranked 19th in NFL

2003 Patriots: 27th

2002 Buccaneers: 27th

 

Great running games? Good running games? Nope. Still looks to me like you can win without a great running game. And don't try to sell me any "yeah buts". Your attempt to escape a failed argument is debunked, so what's next? Forgive me if I don't respond immediately this time...gotta pay the bills somehow.

[StupidNation]

Wow. Where to start? No. 1, stick to one point, and argue it. What are you saying? You started with "A QB can't dominate without a running game", which is false since Warner is doing it right now.

 

So you consider the Cardinals to be dominating? When you throw for 250 yards in a half and only score 13 points at the time that's my point. If a team was balanced and the QB threw 250 yards it would be more like 25 points. That's domination in a half, not 13 points.

 

To counter that, you said that you need more than a passing game, which really just piggy-backing off of the point that I made (see "first downs and forcing turnovers"). Then you imply that I said Trent needs to become Brady or Warner, etc. etc. I never said anything close to that. Actually, what I said was that the crux of your argument implied that those developments were all that would be required to circumvent the need for a running game (give my post another read, it should be very clear; I don't like to brag, but I am a reasonably-well-skilled writer).

 

Actually your point was that the Pats running game was "awful" and yet dominated. After I exposed that fallacy you are twisting the argument on my proofs. Why don't you admit that Pats running game wasn't awful. You are trying to twist the argument and then claim my proofs are off-topic is a bit silly. I responded to your point, so if I can't stick to one point, let's stick there then ok? I also never implied anything from your post, but simply gave my own reasoning what is needed for any type of success.

 

I never said the Bills need to have a dominant running attack, but at the very least they should average 100 yards a game rushing and take more pressure off of the QB.

 

Going back to your point: is over 1800 yards and 17 TDs awful? If not why do you cite that as a source to discredit me? What do you consider an awful running game if that's awful? Would 1800 yards+ rushing with 17 TDs be a boost to this team in a major way? I'm dying to know so I can stay on track.

 

Edit: after reviewing the ridiculous logic some of you think I'm asking for a dominant running game that is fantastic and blows everyone up. All I'm asking for is the same awful running game of the Patriots* 2007, or the terrible 1762 rushing yards of the 2006 Colts. Thanks for making my points.

[thebandit27]

So you consider the Cardinals to be dominating? When you throw for 250 yards in a half and only score 13 points at the time that's my point. If a team was balanced and the QB threw 250 yards it would be more like 25 points. That's domination in a half, not 13 points.

 

 

 

Actually your point was that the Pats running game was "awful" and yet dominated. After I exposed that fallacy you are twisting the argument on my proofs. Why don't you admit that Pats running game wasn't awful. You are trying to twist the argument and then claim my proofs are off-topic is a bit silly. I responded to your point, so if I can't stick to one point, let's stick there then ok? I also never implied anything from your post, but simply gave my own reasoning what is needed for any type of success.

 

I never said the Bills need to have a dominant running attack, but at the very least they should average 100 yards a game rushing and take more pressure off of the QB.

 

Going back to your point: is over 1800 yards and 17 TDs awful? If not why do you cite that as a source to discredit me? What do you consider an awful running game if that's awful? Would 1800 yards+ rushing with 17 TDs be a boost to this team in a major way? I'm dying to know so I can stay on track.

 

Edit: after reviewing the ridiculous logic some of you think I'm asking for a dominant running game that is fantastic and blows everyone up. All I'm asking for is the same awful running game of the Patriots* 2007, or the terrible 1762 rushing yards of the 2006 Colts. Thanks for making my points.

 

Listen, you can dress it up all you want, but what you said was that a QB cannot dominate without a running game. That is a direct quote. To say that Warner's 22 of 27, 251-yard first half, in which he lead the Cardinals to scores on 3 of their first 4 possessions is not a QB dominating the game is absolutely confounding. Unless you have a different definition of QB dominance, in which case you should brush up on your symantics (try Merriam-Webser online, great resource as you'll see later). And, by the way, it is hilarious that you are trying to pigeon hole my point down to "the 2007 Patriots didn't have a running game". That is NOT the point. Once again, I implore you to read. The point is that you do NOT need a great running game for a QB to be dominant. That is what I stated in my original post, and it was very clear.

 

I find it laughable that you think "at the very least", the Bills should average over 100 yds/game, exactly 10 yards/game more than they currently average. Clearly, no thought or reasoning went into that statement. You definitely shot from the hip there, and--since we're nitpicking stats here--you'll be marked-down Ed Hochuli style for it. Yes, those extra 10 yards per game would really make the difference. I know that after watching the last three games, my first thought was "Boy, if we could've only gotten ten more yards rushing during that 60-minute game, I really feel like that would have boosted the team to victory". Very astute observation.

 

As to rushing touchdowns, well, simply put, the Bills are right smack in the middle of the pack with 8.

 

Now, for a little house cleaning. I also did not say that the 2006 Colts had a terrible running game, I merely stated that it was the 19th ranked running game in the NFL. I also noticed that you completely ignored the two Superbowl winning teams that did, in fact, have lousy running games (that one you can accurately quote me on). Interesting. Regardless, I have no further point to make, other than that a QB can indeed, by the commonly-accepted literal definition of the word (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dominate), "dominate" without a solid, good, or even average running game, as Kurt Warner, a 2008-09 NFL MVP candidate, is currently doing by leading the NFL in QB Rating, completion percentage, 1st down conversion percentage, and ranking secong in touchdowns, yards, and average yards per attempt, and leading his team to the playoffs, where they can contend for a Superbowl title.

 

Your honor, the defense rests, a.k.a. I can assure you there will be nothing further from me on this topic, the horse is dead, to beat it further would represent something beyond animal cruelty, and my last name isn't Vick. Come to think of it, my first name isn't Michael, either.

[thebandit27]

Check the game log..... They held the ball, moved it up and down the field and frankly were weak in converting. However on the road in a tough stadium where they have not won since 2002, they controlled the game and scored 26 points.... They had poor field position. Score looked close as Seattle had 2 scoring drives under 15 yards.

 

How about the Bills scoring on the road, controlled short passes like many teams can do? How about the threat of a long pass?

 

I have to say, that's some pretty good analysis. I also liked that they jumped out to a 26-7 lead on the road. Pretty important if you want to win a road division game.

[AnthonyF]

The original email was a veiled commentary on what many are questioning about the Bills offense and their inability to generate offense running or passing. Much has been said that Trent has not done the job and not sure whether it is him or the offensive coordinator and the lousy play calling.

 

Passing offenses should open up the running game. What exactly was your point in the OP if it was not to try defend Edwards???

 

The Bills have shown no desire to score, open up the offense and impose their will on opponents. Their wins frankly have been very mediocre. Where I have a problem is that they could be a whole lot better if they assert themselves and that comes by throwing the ball and scoring.